H
humblelurker
Guest
No sense of humor…
- Status
S
steve975
Guest
This is a very complicated issue. In addition to the effects that it most often leads to, I am against socialism due to the fact I think it is immoral in and of itself. As a friend of mine puts it, “Christ calls us to give of our wealth. He doesn’t command us to give of our neighbors’ wealth.” This is precisely what socialism is - taking from another person to give to a third person.
In reality, the issue becomes blurred given that our tax dollars are spent on thousands of different things - some for services which benefit everyone (police, fire departments, highways, etc.), and others for services that amount to redistribution of income (i.e., tax rebates for people who paid no income tax, social security payments that exceed those a person paid in over his career and actually come out of another person’s paychecks, redistributions for healthcare, etc.). It also gets blurred because many, if not all, of these payments cannot be traced back to a specific person’s paycheck: you can’t show a direct link that John Smith’s taxes were specifically used to pay for Bob Jone’s social security. The taxes are pooled, and the money taken from one person is often paid to another years down the road after sitting in an account, used for other expenses, and/or changing hands numerous times over before being paid out, amounting to a discrepancy in the periods between when the taxes were collected and when they are actually paid out. This all serves to muddle the whole process and makes it impossible to provide a direct link from one person’s tax dollars being used specifically for another person’s collection. Another consideration which further complicates the issue is that often times, the people receiving money through forced redistribution are not just receiving it for themselves, but are also receiving it to provide for their own children or families who are third-party victims.
Despite this muddling, the end result is the same: money is taken from some people and ends up in the pockets of others. This is theft, as the money is taken by force rather than given charitably.
To be clear, I believe strongly in charitable giving and providing to those in need. It is what we are called to do, after all. However, this is not the case with income / wealth redistribution, though many fail to see the difference. There is also a tendency by many to view the government as some sort of a “cleansing” entity – that so long as the money is redistributed by the government, it somehow cleanses the act of theft so that it is no longer theft. It could possibly be argued that this amounts to a type of faith in government which violates the First Commandment – having a false God. I believe that this could also be compared to a government committing any number of other sins, but believing that it is okay so long as it is the government that is doing it.
Many believe that those of us against forced income redistribution are being uncharitable and/or greedy. This is true for many. However, for others like me, I am against it not simply because theft is forced on myself, but because it is forced on others. If I want to give my own money - and I do - that is fine. But I am committing a sin by supporting the theft of money from someone else.
I believe that as a Christian, I simply cannot vote for a measure which advocates taking money from one person and giving it to another, as I am supporting theft by doing so, which is obviously immoral. I don’t believe it is acceptable to vote for something which would result in legalized theft anymore than I believe that it is acceptable to vote for a measure which would lead to any other sin. The fact that it is brokered by the government does not justify the act.
On a slightly different note, I also believe that it is a further sin for those who receive money through forced redistribution such as welfare to spend the money on non-essential items - candy, junk food, flat screen televisions, cigarettes, etc. I also believe that this kind of spending further validates the points about redistribution amounting to theft. And I believe that it is sinful for those who spend carelessly or blow their money to receive money through forced redistribution to compensate for them for their willful irresponsibility, especially when that money is used for continued irresponsible spending afterwards.
In reality, the issue becomes blurred given that our tax dollars are spent on thousands of different things - some for services which benefit everyone (police, fire departments, highways, etc.), and others for services that amount to redistribution of income (i.e., tax rebates for people who paid no income tax, social security payments that exceed those a person paid in over his career and actually come out of another person’s paychecks, redistributions for healthcare, etc.). It also gets blurred because many, if not all, of these payments cannot be traced back to a specific person’s paycheck: you can’t show a direct link that John Smith’s taxes were specifically used to pay for Bob Jone’s social security. The taxes are pooled, and the money taken from one person is often paid to another years down the road after sitting in an account, used for other expenses, and/or changing hands numerous times over before being paid out, amounting to a discrepancy in the periods between when the taxes were collected and when they are actually paid out. This all serves to muddle the whole process and makes it impossible to provide a direct link from one person’s tax dollars being used specifically for another person’s collection. Another consideration which further complicates the issue is that often times, the people receiving money through forced redistribution are not just receiving it for themselves, but are also receiving it to provide for their own children or families who are third-party victims.
Despite this muddling, the end result is the same: money is taken from some people and ends up in the pockets of others. This is theft, as the money is taken by force rather than given charitably.
To be clear, I believe strongly in charitable giving and providing to those in need. It is what we are called to do, after all. However, this is not the case with income / wealth redistribution, though many fail to see the difference. There is also a tendency by many to view the government as some sort of a “cleansing” entity – that so long as the money is redistributed by the government, it somehow cleanses the act of theft so that it is no longer theft. It could possibly be argued that this amounts to a type of faith in government which violates the First Commandment – having a false God. I believe that this could also be compared to a government committing any number of other sins, but believing that it is okay so long as it is the government that is doing it.
Many believe that those of us against forced income redistribution are being uncharitable and/or greedy. This is true for many. However, for others like me, I am against it not simply because theft is forced on myself, but because it is forced on others. If I want to give my own money - and I do - that is fine. But I am committing a sin by supporting the theft of money from someone else.
I believe that as a Christian, I simply cannot vote for a measure which advocates taking money from one person and giving it to another, as I am supporting theft by doing so, which is obviously immoral. I don’t believe it is acceptable to vote for something which would result in legalized theft anymore than I believe that it is acceptable to vote for a measure which would lead to any other sin. The fact that it is brokered by the government does not justify the act.
On a slightly different note, I also believe that it is a further sin for those who receive money through forced redistribution such as welfare to spend the money on non-essential items - candy, junk food, flat screen televisions, cigarettes, etc. I also believe that this kind of spending further validates the points about redistribution amounting to theft. And I believe that it is sinful for those who spend carelessly or blow their money to receive money through forced redistribution to compensate for them for their willful irresponsibility, especially when that money is used for continued irresponsible spending afterwards.
S
sidbrown
Guest
So if someone has been laid off from work, and is receiving unemployment compensation, you say that it would be a sin for him to watch EWTN on a flat screen TV ? Suppose his TV broke down and the local market was having a sale and deep discount on smaller flat screen TV’s. So you would say that it would be a sin for him to buy one so that he would watch EWTN ? Would this be a mortal sin or a venial sin?
H
Hesychios
Guest
… And these people, as poorly paid as most of them are, are fastidious savers and extremely industrious.
H
Highwayhound
Guest
For 5 months of 2009 A.D. I bicycled from Alaska to Las Vegas. All done without the benefit of a flat screen TV. I never asked for charity, but found that there were hundreds of people willing to give to me of their own free will. (Sometimes an ice cold beverage just makes the day.)
In your example the person would be lacking in the virtue of Temperance and would be pracicing the sin of Gluttony. It would not be a sin to have the desire to watch EWTN. To take money given to a person for purposes of surviving and to spend it on a TV would be a sin (last time I checked TVs were not edible, heck most TV dinners are not edible
). We are fortunate to have confession available to us. I am no theolgian, but would think this would be a venial sin.
H
HeWillProvide
Guest
The government already mishandles and misuses our taxes; people already abuse the welfare system, jobless benefits, etc… millions and millions of our taxes are already wasted… why would we want to expand the government’s control of our money if our money is already being mishandled and abused by both the government and our citizens? The government and our own citizens have already proved that we do not and cannot properly handle the “distribution” of our tax money. My money is already being wasted now - why would I want to give the government more of my money in the name of “socialism”???
S
sidbrown
Guest
How big would the TV screen have to be in order to qualify for the sin of gluttony?For 5 months of 2009 A.D. I bicycled from Alaska to Las Vegas. All done without the benefit of a flat screen TV. I never asked for charity, but found that there were hundreds of people willing to give to me of their own free will. (Sometimes an ice cold beverage just makes the day.)
In your example the person would be lacking in the virtue of Temperance and would be pracicing the sin of Gluttony. It would not be a sin to have the desire to watch EWTN. To take money given to a person for purposes of surviving and to spend it on a TV would be a sin (last time I checked TVs were not edible, heck most TV dinners are not edible
Actually, you can watch many TV programs from around the world free on your pc, so another question would be how big does your computer monitor have to be in order to qualify for the sin of gluttony?
H
Highwayhound
Guest
The point of my post was to state that I survived some 5,000 miles over 5 months without a television. Therefore, based on my personal experience, I would suggest that TV is not a need in life. It does not matter if the TV is a flat screen or has vacuum tubes. So, if a person is spending money given to them on televisions when the money came from other people’s work then that would qualify as gluttony.
Besides with all the crud on TV now why would anyone care to watch it?
Well, except reruns of EMERGENCY and of course the new season of 24 (which premiers Jan 17th).:extrahappy:
God bless
S
sidbrown
Guest
A lot of people are sick and watch Mass on EWTN. And healthy people enjoy the instructive and religious programming on EWTN.Besides with all the crud on TV now why would anyone care to watch it?
H
HeWillProvide
Guest
Original poster: do you agree or disagree with the following:
The government already mishandles and misuses our taxes; people already abuse the welfare system, jobless benefits, etc… millions and millions of our taxes are already wasted… why would we want to expand the government’s control of our money if our money is already being mishandled and abused by both the government and our citizens? The government and our own citizens have already proved that we do not and cannot properly handle the “distribution” of our tax money. My money is already being wasted now - why would I want to give the government more of my money in the name of “socialism”???
The government already mishandles and misuses our taxes; people already abuse the welfare system, jobless benefits, etc… millions and millions of our taxes are already wasted… why would we want to expand the government’s control of our money if our money is already being mishandled and abused by both the government and our citizens? The government and our own citizens have already proved that we do not and cannot properly handle the “distribution” of our tax money. My money is already being wasted now - why would I want to give the government more of my money in the name of “socialism”???
P
PlipPlop
Guest
I agree. This is why it needs to “be done properly”. In other words, our government needs improvement.
T
tjm190
Guest
Problem is every movement out there claims it’s the one best suited to do the improving.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
So do I.
The point is TV is not necessary for survival. Check Maslov’s Hierarchy of Needs.
Our parish has a health ministry which visits the sick and shut-ins on a regular basis. This is in addition to our pastor’s visits. So instead of having the government give them MY money to buy a TV, I visit the sick and support my parish.
H
humblelurker
Guest
I found this article and thought everyone would like to read it:
blog.acton.org/archives/tag/friedrich-engels
“Karl Marx’s collaborator, Friedrich Engels, saw three major obstacles to the socialist vision: private property, religion, and ‘this present form of marriage.’”
blog.acton.org/archives/tag/friedrich-engels
“Karl Marx’s collaborator, Friedrich Engels, saw three major obstacles to the socialist vision: private property, religion, and ‘this present form of marriage.’”
H
humblelurker
Guest
H
HeWillProvide
Guest
So if our government needs improvement, why would we let them work on its self-improvement with MORE of OUR money (socialism)?
Do we honestly think government is going to become less corrupt and we should give them another shot with, again, MORE of our money?
I certainly don’t have money coming out of my ears and government has already PROVED it mismanages our taxes, so again, YES, igovernment needs to improve, but NO, the improvement is not going to be done by simply handing over more of OUR money and hoping for the best.
S
sidbrown
Guest
Government can promote the general welfare, promote freedom and promote virtue. I don’t see anything wrong with promoting the welfare of the working class and everyone else, but I do see something radically wrong with promoting the welfare of multimillionaires who work for AIG and Wall Street by first bailing them out with taxpayer dollars and then allowing them to hand out multimillion dollar bonuses after the hard working taxpayers have bailed them out.
F
fish90
Guest
It’s is too bad the government usually fails in promoting the general welfare.
I do have issues with the bailouts, but do you not want the best talent being attracted to these companies, so you can get your return?
T
tjm190
Guest
So your plan would be to invest in a a company, then provide incentives for their best employees to pack up and leave?
S
sidbrown
Guest
In 2007, CEO’s at major US companies were paid 344 times the pay of the average worker. But in 1980, they were paid only 42 times the pay of the average worker. Were executives a whole lot less hardworking and qualified in 1980 than in 2007? AIG was brought to financial ruin by the incompetence of those executives leading the company. They begged the hardworking US taxpayer to bail them out, which Bush did with government funding of $175 billion. So now, after it has been proven that their executives are incompetent and failures, the company AIG pays out $165 million in bonuses to executives in the very division which had brought about the financial ruin of the company? Seventy three employees received bonuses of one million dollars or more?
So we have socialism for the rich, and promote the general welfare of the rich, but nothing for the working man thrown out of work and facing foreclosure on his house. Nothing for him except perhaps a $25 tent and a few food stamps so that he and his family can avoid total hunger and death.
- Status